Mick Philpott: Another Family Annihilator

Six children were murdered in a house fire started by their father to punish his ex-girlfriend. Duwayne, Jade, John, Jack, Jesse and Jayden died because we live in a culture which refuses to take male violence and domestic violence seriously. Their father, mother and their best best friend may have been convicted of manslaughter in the deaths of 6 innocent children but our whole society needs to shoulder responsibility for their murder. 

6 children died in a fire because we continually excuse the behaviour of violent, abusive men. 

Michael Philpott, aged 21, served 3 years of a 7 year sentence for stabbing an ex-partner 17 times and then attacking her mother. He was convicted of attempted murder and served only 3 years for a violent assault on a 17 year old girl whose only crime was to end their relationship. Michael Philpott murdered his 6 children in a house fire to punish his girlfriend who had ended their relationship. 

This is normal behaviour for violent men: punishing their partners.

Controlling women through multiple pregnancies is normal behaviour for violent men.

Controlling women financially is normal behaviour for violent men.

Controlling and abusing women sexually is normal for violent men.

Mick Philpott’s behaviour was normal for abusive, violent men. 

We live in a culture that thinks 50 Shades of Grey and The Paris Wife are romantic. We tell children that 6 year old boys who “like” tell them so by assaulting them. Twilight tells teenage girls that boyfriends who stalk you are romantic. The Diary of Bridget Jones reinforces the belief that women are nothing but neurotic and pathetic without a man. 

2 women a week are murdered by their partners in the UK. 

Mick Philpott isn’t evil. 

He’s a normal man who has been told repeatedly that male violence against women is irrelevant; that masculinity involves violence.

Children like Duwayne, Jade, John, Jack, Jesse and Jayden will continue to murdered at the hands of violent men unless we start standing up and holding all violent men accountable for their behaviour.

Marina at It’s Not a Zero Sum Game has written an important critique of the Daily Mail coverage of this case here.

10 thoughts on “Mick Philpott: Another Family Annihilator”

  1. You know, in generalizing about male behavior from an outlier you are doing exactly the same as the Daily Mail which is generalizing about Benefit Claimants from an outlier. You’re just jumping on an edge condition case to prove your agenda, in exactly the same way as the Daily Mail does about all benefit claimant being work-shy scroungers.

    You’re even hyping it up in the same way – no-one has suggested that Philpott murdered Duwayne, Jade, John, Jack, Jesse and Jayden. Murder requires intent. He was convicted on manslaughter. Different thing and it’s just lazy, or malicious, to conflagrate the two.

    I don’t normally agree with Anne Widdecombe, but she was extremely sensible about the case on the World at One today – and she’d met Philpott (and found him a job)

    Also, what is it with radfems and censoring people’s sexual behaviour? What business is it of yours or mine if some (or rather a lot) of women enjoy Shades of Grey and a little mild BDSM? It’s a ghastly, poorly written book (yes I have read it) but I’ve no right to sneer at, or pass value judgements, over other people sexual fantasies and neither have you.

    1. They started a fire in a house in which his 6 children were sleeping.

      They murdered those children. That may not have been the intention but it is the end result. Same with adults who drive under the influence of alcohol: it’s a callous disregard for human life. Our justice system may not believe its murder but doing something so unbelievably stupid that results in the death of another human constitutes murder in my book.

      As for the rest of your post, do stop whinging. It’s tedious.

    2. Ah right, the Humpty-Dumpty school of debate. No arguing with that if you’re just going to make words mean what you want them to mean – but I guess that’s your privilege.

      Am am curious though why you feel the need to be snotty about other people’s sex-lives?

    3. 50 Shades of Grey isn’t BDSM. In fact, the BDSM community are the ones leading the criticism of the 50 Shades romanticisation of domestic violence.

      Perhaps, you could google instead of boring me.

    4. Hi Anon

      You appear not to have read the blog properly, and this seems to have meant that you haven’t understood it. Either that, or you are being wilfully obtuse and provocative.

      > “in generalizing about male behaviour”

      There was no generalisation about male behaviour. There were references to ‘*violent* men’, and to the male violence that those violent men perpetrate, and to how that male violence (particularly if it is against women and children) perpetrated by those violent men is not treated seriously enough by the criminal justice system, by the media, and by society more broadly. And it is this minimising of such behaviour that in part perpetuates it.

      > “Murder requires intent. He was convicted on manslaughter. Different thing and it’s just lazy, or malicious, to conflagrate the two.”

      Murder and manslaughter are frequently conflated. Even in your own analysis, the difference between the two is only ‘intent’. The actions are the same; the outcomes are the same. Not all that different, really.

      Finally, here was SGM’s comment on 50 Shades: “We live in a culture that thinks 50 Shades of Grey and The Paris Wife are romantic.” And from that you got censorship, sneering and value-judgements? Horsefeathers!

      Your whole comment is reactionary and defensive. Did you think that the blog was about you?

    5. Most people from the DSMS are intelligent enough to know that 50 Shades is about domestic abuse. Only those who find pink furry handcufts erotic seem to find it transgressive. Bless.
      So your reply is all about you.
      SGM did not mention the threesomes, the dogging etc. So why are you saying she’s judgemental. She’s never judged me. Because I know the difference between coercian and consent.
      Yes, it is manslaughter. Not murder. But based on coercian and the warped belief he can ‘get’ his other children back by getting their mother in prison

    6. So if we were to accept this premise that 50 shades is about domestic abuse which hypothesis do we choose to explain sales of 6 million in the UK alone – about 1/4 of the female adult population? That women enjoy erotic tales of domestic abuse or that they’re too stupid to understand what they’re reading?

      I’d suggest that there’s something a little more complicated going on

    7. Nice derail there. Talk about anything other than male violence. In fact turn it on its head and talk about women’s behaviour rather than men’s appalling, controlling, abusive behaviour – which is in fact what the blog post was about.

  2. “I’ve no right to sneer at, or pass value judgements, over other people sexual fantasies and neither have you.” Hehehe! Talk about jumping on an adge to prove your agenda… In fact, talk about just making things up to suit your own agenda.

    And as for murder/manslaughter – meh! His intent was to control and abuse regardless of who got hurt or got in his way. And this is a pattern shown by all abusers and that sense of entitlement is at the root of male violence. It is a pattern and there are signs well in advance of all these cases, whether you want to see them or not, “Anonymous”.

Leave a Reply